OpenSecrets Bloghttps://www.opensecrets.org/news
Investigating Money in PoliticsTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:09:59 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1More Members of Congress Hold Student Loan Debthttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/03/more-members-of-congress-hold-student-loan-debt/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/03/more-members-of-congress-hold-student-loan-debt/#commentsTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:09:59 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=8205Members of Congress are, on average, far wealthier than the typical American, but an increasing number of them have a now typical American financial obligation: student loan debt.

Forty-seven members of Congress had a cumulative total of between $1.8 million and $4.6 million in student loan debt in 2013, according to their personal financial disclosure statements. That includes loans for themselves, their spouses or their children.

The 2013 numbers — the most recent available — represent an uptick from previous years. Last year, OpenSecrets Blog found that in 2012 just 41 members of Congress carried student loan debt, totaling between $1.5 million and $3.8 million (an exact figure can’t be pinpointed because lawmakers list their assets and liabilities in broad ranges). But to put things in context, just over 8 percent of members of Congress have some form of student loan debt, compared to almost 13 percent of Americans overall (an estimated 40 million) who hold a total of more than $1.2 trillion in such debt.

The 47 members had, on average, $68,500 in student loan debt — significantly higher than the $26,842 owed on average by American households with student loan debt in 2010.

It can be difficult to determine exactly who owes the money in a congressional household. Some members of Congress disclose whose education was being financed and at what institution, but others are vague. Of the 62 total student loans disclosed (some lawmakers listed more than one loan), seven were explicitly described as being for a child and 15 were in the name of a spouse.

Indicating the diverse range of members who have student loans, Rooney is the 59th wealthiest member of the House, with an average net worth in 2013 of $18.7 million (he lists a racetrack in Yonkers, N.Y., as an asset), while Conyers is 85 years old and had an average net worth that year of minus $187,501 (yes, nearly $200,000 in the hole). According to the form, Conyers’ debt appears to be for his wife, Monica Conyers, and was incurred in the “late 1990s.” Conyers’ press secretary declined to comment or describe the loan in any more detail. A spokesperson for Meng said the student loan belonged to her husband and was taken out to pay for dental school.

Ruiz appears to have made significant progress on his student loan debt. He was first elected in 2012 and at the time reported owing between $115,000 and $300,000 on student loans. That made him, by far, the member with the highest amount of outstanding student loan debt. Ruiz has an undergraduate degree from UCLA, and a medical degree and two other advanced degrees from Harvard.

The party split on student loan debt? More Republicans than Democrats listing such a liability on their disclosure statements — 28 to 19.

The biggest divide among members with student loan debt, however, was not partisan, but by chamber. Just three of the 47 members of Congress who listed these loans were senators, and all are recent arrivals — Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Murphy, who ranks 96th in average wealth among members of the Senate, listed student loans for himself and his spouse, each worth between $15,000 and $50,000. Gardner listed a loan of between $15,000 and $50,000, while Lee had one for between $10,000 and $15,000.

Close to three dozen Democrats will boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, angry that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) invited the head-of-state without consulting President Obama.

The rift is emblematic of the tension between the White House and hard-line supporters of Israel on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. The Obama Administration has urged patience as it attempts to finish negotiations with the Iranians, while Netanyahu is expected to warn against deals with Iran over its nuclear program. A preview his remarks was available Monday when Netanyahu spoke at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel,” Netanyahu toldAIPAC, the largest pro-Israel lobby in Washington by far and one that has been spending record amounts in recent years to influence a variety of interests including Iranian nuclear proliferation.

The slice of the Democratic caucus that is expected to miss Tuesday’s address is relatively small. What may be lost in the discussion surrounding the boycott is that Democrats have long been the favored party of pro-Israel interests. And just one of the Democrats named by Politico as planning to skip Netanyahu’s speech, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, was a top 20 recipient from those interests in 2014.

In that cycle, Democrats received $6.5 million from pro-Israel interests, while Republicans saw just over $5 million. That works out to 56 percent of the cash coming from pro-Israel groups going to Democrats and 44 percent to Republicans. The spread isn’t unusual: Democrats regularly receive over 60 percent of the cash from pro-Israel groups. The only cycle going back to 1990 that Democrats received less than 50 percent of these contributions was 2006, when they pulled in just 48 percent of the money — but Republicans got even less, just 40 percent.

The numbers are somewhat deceiving, since AIPAC doesn’t make campaign contributions. Donations by pro-Israel interests are led, in fact, by JStreetPAC, a much more moderate organization that tends to favor liberals. In the 2014 cycle the group’s PAC and individuals associated with JStreet contributed almost $1.8 million, with the vast majority going to Democrats.

AIPAC, however, is huge in the lobbying world, and posted its biggest year yet in 2014 by spending $3.1 million to lobby the federal government; it beat its 2013 high water mark by $82,589.That was the seventh year in a row that AIPAC spent more than $2 million (and sixth in a row that it spent more than $2.5 million). While there are a handful of pro-Israel groups that lobby the federal government, AIPAC is the unquestioned big dog in this realm and accounts for most of the increased lobbying funds.

The committee has always lobbied on defense issues, but the increased spending corresponds with mounting concern over the Iranian nuclear issue and Israeli security concerns.

Lobbying by AIPAC in the first several years of the 21st century grew steadily as nuclear proliferation fears rose. Lobbying spending by the group spiked in 2006, the year of the first round of UN sanctions on Iran, to just under $2 million. The spending levels spiked again in 2008, a year in which the U.S. and Israel began cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear operations and talks with Iran over its uranium enrichment collapsed. Lobbying outlays by the group have remained high during the Obama presidency.

In 2014, the bills most frequently listed by AIPAC in its lobbying reports were the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, which has been reintroduced in the 114th Congress and would impose increased sanctions to stop Iran from enriching uranium that might be used to build a nuclear warhead; and the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, a bill that was signed into law by Obama on Dec. 19 and extended authorization to place Department of Defense items in stockpiles in Israel.

Last August, the International Business Times reported that Israeli military forces had been using American weapons stockpiles in its war in Gaza.

The United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act passed the Senate with unanimous consent and the House by a voice vote, meaning no individual voting records for either chamber were recorded. The law’s considerable support was evident from the number of lawmakers sponsoring the bill, however. Seventy-nine senators put their name on the bill.

Yesterday we profiled the top four opponents of net neutrality who, though the FCC’s decision to regulate the Internet as a public utility has been made, are likely to continue to play a role as the decision is contested in the courts and perhaps in Congress. Today, the other side: brief influence background facts on the biggest names supporting the FCC’s action.

This is a tougher task because the interests supporting net neutrality tend to be scattered, there is a large unofficial coalition, but not all its members have significant lobbying and PAC operations. Netflix, for instance, has been one of the most vocal supporters of net neutrality, mounting successful social media campaigns — but its PAC contributions are not even a rounding error on Comcast’s ($7,500 in contributions by Netflix’s PAC vs. $1.9 million by Comcast’s).

Still, some supporters of net neutrality do have genuine Washington power and have flexed it in this fight — and are likely to continue to do so as the fight moves to other venues. Here are the two most significant.

Google: Internet search-and-everything-else giant Google is one of the only pro-net neutrality organizations that comes close to having the influence heft in Washington of the four big anti-net neutrality organizations, but its interests are also far more diversified than any of theirs are (all either are telecom companies or the telecom trade association). That means it’s tougher to gauge how much of Google’s influence power is focused on net neutrality.

But, for starters, it is a company that is well liked by Washington — in 2013, 36 members of Congress were invested in the company’s stock.

When it comes to campaign donations, the company’s PAC and employees gave about $1.6 million to congressional candidates in the 2014 race, favoring Democrats over Republicans — though the corporate PAC favors Republicans by the slightest of margins. All Google donors combined gave to 249 members of the House (average donation: $3,967) and 64 members of the Senate (average donation: $6,692).

It’s not clear if Google has a friend in the White House, but Google employees were the third largest source of campaign contributions for Barack Obama in 2012.

Google might be strongest in terms of it’s lobbying might. Not only is Google the pro-net neutrality organization that spends the most on lobbying — $16.8 million in 2014 — it was the ninth biggest spender on federal lobbying of any organization. Impressive as that sounds, however, it still ranked behind anti-net neutrality Comcast and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. Google did employ 98 lobbyists in 2014, including 79 veterans of the revolving door and two former members of Congress.

While Google’s lobbying might is undisputed, quantifying how much was directed towards net neutrality is tricky — few other companies lobby on such a wide range of issues; it lists everything from intellectual property (the most frequently mentioned issue in the company’s lobbying reports) to immigration to driverless cars and wind power.

Microsoft: Microsoft has largely been eclipsed in the Washington influence world by Google. Still, it’s well-represented and ranks as the second most powerful of the pro-net neutrality organizations.

While Google is a popular stock for members of Congress, as are Verizon, Comcast and AT&T, Microsoft is actually the third most popular investment for members of Congress, with 59 members owning shares.

Like Google’s employees, Microsoft’s employees at least are big fans of President Obama, and ranked as the second-largest source of campaign cash for his 2012 reelection campaign. Comcast employees also ranked highly on Obama’s list of campaign contributions, 18th to be exact. None of that money came from any of the corporations’ PACs, as Obama did not accept PAC contributions.

That said, Microsoft’s PAC and employees combined donated more than $1.4 million to congressional candidates in 2014, slightly favoring Democrats over Republicans. A total of 214 House members took Microsoft money (average donation: $4,280) and 43 senators (average donation: $7,655).

Microsoft does not rank in the top 20 spenders in lobbying, but still spent more than $8.3 million in 2014. That’s down from 2013 and spending levels in the early 2000s, but still enough to foot the bill for 98 lobbyists, including 79 revolving door vets and one former lawmaker.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/net-neutrality-supporters-fast-facts/feed/0ACU’s Spending Might be CPAC’s Biggest Splashhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/acus-spending-might-be-cpacs-biggest-splash/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/acus-spending-might-be-cpacs-biggest-splash/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 17:43:49 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=8273The ‘silent’ primary to convince conservative voters — and donors — which potential 2016 candidate is their guy or gal started on Thursday and continues through Saturday. Or at least that’s how the Conservative Political Action Conference, the yearly meeting organized by the American Conservative Union, bills itself — a chance for political hopefuls, particularly prospective White House candidates like Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to tout their right-facing credentials. Big donors also survey the three day event to see which candidates seem worth their investment. And as the event’s importance has grown, so has the clout of the group that organizes it.

This year, pretty much all of the candidates you think might be running for the White House on the Republican ticket are on the schedule (even Donald Trump!). The event kicked off with Carson, a former neurosurgeon and longshot GOP nominee, and was followed later in the day by Christie, Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Friday, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Sen. Rick Santorum (Penn.), and Bush were all speak.

Paul has won the culminating straw poll for the last two years in a row, a litmus test indicating which candidates the conservative base might look kindly on in the primary contests next year.

The organization that runs the show, the American Conservative Union, has also branched out into political spending in recent cycles. Altogether, ACU and its affiliates spent $844,578 on the 2014 midterm elections, with a better success rate than it had in 2012.

Through its PAC, the Conservative Strikeforce, ACU gambled on 15 midterm races in 2014; 10 resulted in its desired outcome. In 2012, only four of the candidates backed by the group went on to victory.

The group spent far less on the midterm elections than it did in the 2012 cycle, however. In 2014 the PAC spent $207,461 — about $139,000 in favor of Republican candidates and $69,000 against Democratic ones. Four years earlier, it spent $468,652 — $430,000 to support conservative candidates and $39,000 against Dems.

But getting the ACU PAC’s endorsement doesn’t translate into getting CPAC’s spotlight. The famously pig-castrating Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is the only Conservative Strikeforce-supported candidate from 2014 on the 2015 CPAC schedule of speakers. Ernst, who also gave the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech this year, spoke just before Christie on Thursday. Conservative Strikeforce spent $72,418 in support of Ernst in her race for her senate seat. The ACU’s super PAC also spent $69,000 on Ernst (she was one of two candidates supported by the super PAC; the other was Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri).

While it has both a PAC and a super PAC, the ACU is itself a 501(c)(4) politically active nonprofit itself that reported spending nearly $556,000 on the 2014 midterms — and much of that spending was against a single Democratic candidate. The biggest target by far was Democratic House candidate Nick Casey in West Virginia. ACU spent nearly $364,000 against Casey in the race, and spent $2,700 on the Republican that eventually won, Rep. Alex Mooney. The (c)(4) has shown tremendous growth in terms of spending poewr; in 2012, it laid out just $30,549.

Update: A profile of the biggest supporters of net neutrality is available here.

The Federal Communications Commission just approved new rules that allow it to regulate the Internet like a utility, establishing net neutrality. But only for now. The move has some very powerful opponents, starting with the cable and telecom companies — companies that control most of the Internet infrastructure, seem likely to take the issue to court, and have many friends in Congress.

In recent days and weeks the primary opposition in Congress to a move to establish net neutrality was led by Republicans, who do indeed get a lot of support from the big telecoms and cable companies — but it’s by no means a partisan issue. Many Democrats also have close ties to these companies.

We’ve compiled some fast facts below on the influence wielded in Washington by the four biggest opponents of net neutrality and just who their friends are:

Comcast:Comcast, the cable, Internet and content giant, is one of Washington’s most powerful influence-wielders; if the net neutrality fight is brought to Congress again (yesterday, Republican leaders conceded they wouldn’t be able to get legislation through before the FCC vote), Comcast will have the ear of many lawmakers.

For starters, at least 37 members of Congress owned shares in Comcast in 2013, and in the 2014 cycle 373 House members (out of 435 total) and 45 senators were recipients of campaign donations from either the Comcast corporate PAC or employees of Comcast. Comcast donors gave a total of $2.9 million to congressional candidates. With Comcast’s sprawling empire of subsidiaries, for example NBC and Universal Studios, not all of that money was necessarily directed by people with a direct interest in the net neutrality issue, but it’s hard to ignore the size of Comcast’s campaign cash largesse: House members who took money from Comcast donors, received, on average, $5,248; Senate members received, on average, $16,247.

In the Senate, Democrats received, on average, more than Republicans and in the House, members of both parties received very similar amounts. But far and away the biggest recipient of Comcast money in the 2014 cycle was a pivotal figure — Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), who received more than $107,000 from Comcast donors. In the Senate, the No. 1 recipient of Comcast cash was Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) who received $53,900.

Comcast was also the eighth biggest spender on federal lobbying in 2014, so not only does it have the cash to catch the attention of lawmakers, it has a small army of lobbyists to deliver the donations and the company’s message. To be more precise, Comcast has 128 federal lobbyists on payroll, 105 of whom have gone through the revolving door. That includes six former members of Congress who have now become lobbyists.

Verizon: Telephone and cable company Verizon has also strongly opposed a move towards net neutrality, and while it doesn’t carry quite the heft of Comcast (it doesn’t own a TV network, for instance), it is still another of Washington’s most powerful outside forces. At least 50 members of Congress owned some shares in Verizon in 2013, making it the 10th most popular investment for lawmakers. And Verizon gave more than $2.2 million to congressional candidates in the 2014 cycle. Like Comcast, the company’s PAC and employees favored Republicans with their donations, but left few members of Congress without at least a token gift.

In total, 335 House members and 61 senators took campaign cash from Verizon donors, with House members averaging about $4,800 apiece and senators just over $6,600.

Verizon’s lobbying corps is significant, though it did not make the list of top 20 biggest spenders in 2014 — the company onlyspent $13.2 million, missing being on the roster by just $200,000. Still, the company fielded a force of 110 lobbyists, including 89 who had spun through the revolving door and four former members of Congress.

AT&T:AT&T, originally a near-monopoly of a phone company, has transitioned into being a major player in the broadband world and a vocal opponent of net neutrality. Comcast and Verizon may be popular investments for members of Congress, but AT&T is even more of a congressional blue chip — 52 members of Congress owned shares in 2013.

When it comes to spending, AT&T’s PAC and employees gave more than $2.8 million to congressional candidates in 2014. Again, AT&T donors favored Republicans, but donated to 402 members of the House — that’s 92 percent of House members — and 73 members of the Senate. The average donation to a House recipient was $5,730 and for the Senate the figure was $4,791.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association: The NCTA is the major trade group representing companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, and consequently is a powerful force in Washington in its own right. The association has few employees, but its PAC is active — it gave congressional candidates more than $1.7 million in 2014. While it didn’t have the quite the reach of the three big telecom companies, it still managed to make donations to 246 members of the House (with an average donation of $5,370) and 37 members of the Senate (average donation $8,945).

The NCTA’s big strength, however, is lobbying. It ranked seventh on the list of biggest spenders on lobbying, with $17.4 million. The association’s own lobbying force is 94 people strong — 76 revolving door veterans and four former members of Congress.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler once headed this group, which finds less to like about him lately.

Illinois Republican venture capitalist Bruce Rauner celebrates his win over Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn in Chicago. For the second time, a mysterious Ohio-based politically active nonprofit that attacked a Rauner opponent has been revealed to have ties to a top Rauner campaign consultant. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

A mysterious Ohio nonprofit that attacked GOP opponents of Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner last year has been linked to a network of political operatives with close ties to Rauner’s own campaign. This is not the first time a shadowy outside group targeting Rauner’s opponents has been shown to have ties to the actual campaign, and the pattern is strikingly similar.

The Ohio group in question this time, the Mid America Fund, was formed in January 2014 as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Run by a former political aide turned university staffer named Roberta J. Mertz, within days it began lobbing sharp attacks at every Republican candidate for Illinois governor — except Rauner. The attacks immediately raised eyebrows because of their similarity to another mysterious Ohio nonprofit that attacked another potential GOP rival to Rauner a year earlier. In that case, as OpenSecrets Blog reported last summer, the nonprofit had very close ties to one of Rauner’s top campaign operatives.

But for most of the last year, Mertz remained silent, declining to return phone calls or emails. It appeared that Mid America Fund had ceased activity, with no source of funding ever publicly identified.

The trail would’ve stopped there, but in October, as first reported by the Sunlight Foundation, Mid America came back to life, firing off a salvo of attack ads aimed at the Democrat running to be governor of Rhode Island. Rhode Island campaign finance law, unlike federal or Illinois law, requires groups like this to disclose their funding sources. Mid America Fund reported it had received $735,000 from Government Integrity Fund, another Ohio-based politically-active nonprofit that shares a board of directors with yet another Buckeye State organization, Jobs & Progress Fund. It also brought in $125,000 from the Republican Governors Association.

The new filings create a link to a set of organizations with ties to at least one of Rauner’s top campaign consultants.

Jobs & Progress Fund

In Jan. 2013, in a strikingly similar scenario to the Mid America Fund attacks in 2014, Jobs & Progress Fund — a previously unheard of Ohio-based politically-active nonprofit — began attacking Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.). Shock was recently re-elected to Congress but supposedly had been contemplating a bid for the Illinois governorship, lining him up for a showdown with Rauner.

Schock’s staff blamed Rauner, but no connection was proved. Schock announced he would not pursue the governor’s job. At that point, Jobs & Progress Fund appeared to go dormant.

Just as Mid America Fund attacked Rauner’s opponents and then appeared to go dormant until suddenly re-emerging in another race, Jobs & Progress Fund sprang back to life last summer, funding attacks on Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who was running against eventual winner David Perdue in the GOP primary for Georgia’s open Senate seat.

What Rauner and Perdue had in common, besides being politically inexperienced wealthy businessmen, was a connection to a political operative named Nick Ayers. Ayers was, by marriage, a cousin of Perdue, and one of his consulting firms, Target Enterprises, was hired by Perdue’s campaign. Target Enterprises also worked for Rauner’s campaign.

But Ayers also has connections to the outside groups involved.

The attacks on Kingston were made by a super PAC called Citizens for a Working America, an Ayers client. It received its funding from Jobs & Progress and the Government Integrity Fund, which, it turns out, Ayers has also worked for.

Some examples of the close ties Ayers has with these Ohio groups:

In 2012, Citizens for a Working America, the super PAC backed by Jobs & Progress Fund that assailed Kingston in the Georgia Senate runoff, spent $455,000 on advertisements backing Mitt Romney. It was Ayers’ firm, Target Enterprises, that handled the buy.

In 2012, Ayers’ other company, C5 Creative Consulting (which was paid $133,000 by the Rauner campaign) was paid $200,000 by Government Integrity Fund.

In 2013, C5 Creative Consulting was paid $10,000 by a super PAC called Arkansas Horizon, which received funding from Citizens for a Working America. Arkansas Horizon paid Target Enterprises another $1.8 million to buy ads.

In 2014, Government Integrity Fund paid Ayers’ Target Enterprises almost $1.1 million to make ad buys in Arkansas.

In short, there’s strong circumstantial evidence that it is more than a coincidence that these particular outside groups targeted opponents or potential opponents of Rauner — Ayers worked for Rauner and he also worked for groups that appear to either be funding or closely connected to both Jobs & Progress Fund and Mid America Fund.

At issue is a question of coordination. Groups like super PACs and politically active nonprofits can be active in political races in the post-Citizens United landscape, but they are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates who are benefiting from their work.

Ayers did not respond to questions from OpenSecrets Blog when we tried to contact him last year and he did not respond to our questions on his connection with Mid America Fund. He told the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2014 that while his firms did work for both Perdue and the outside groups attacking Kingston, there was no coordination because he had established a “firewall” preventing him from knowing details of Perdue’s campaign, even though his firm was earning millions from it.

Rauner’s spokesman, Lance Trover, did not respond to a request for comment.

The two Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission who have asked for a delay in the agency’s vote tomorrow (Thursday) on net neutrality rules both have past connections to big money interests opposed to the rules. On the other hand, so does the FCC chairman, whose proposal is on the table.

At stake is the classification of broadband Internet. Chairman Tom Wheeler and the two other Democrats on the commission are pushing to label the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act — and big cable companies are not keen on that idea. The proposed rules come after President Obama endorsed net neutrality plans in November, but the battle over the future of the Internet is not a new one.

Currently, details of the plan aren’t available to the public. Critics, including the Republican commissioners, take issue with the closed-door nature of the proceedings, since labeling the Internet as a utility like power would mean strict regulations on Internet “fast lanes” and usage (though the FCC is not expected to go so far as to regulate pricing).

“With the future of the entire Internet at stake, it is imperative that the FCC get this right,” the Republican pair, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Reilly, said in a joint statement. “And to do that, we must live up to the highest standards of transparency.”

In the statement, they asked that the 332-page Internet regulation plan be made public so that the American public could have a chance to understand what was being proposed, and that the vote be postponed for nearly a month. A look at their employment history shows a connection to the major companies that have been fighting rules like those currently before the FCC. And a broader look at lobbyists looking to influence the FCC also shows that a substantial number of them have spent time working on Capitol Hill — or at the FCC itself.

Pai, for his part, used to be a lawyer for Verizon, a company that has been on the front lines fighting FCC net neutrality guidelines in the past. In 2010, after the FCC reached a compromise deal on Internet neutrality regs, Verizon sued the agency. Last January, Verizon won the case. It may wish it hadn’t; reclassification of the Internet as a utility would be a broader move by the FCC than the regulatory effort Verizon quashed.

Verizon is a major money player in Washington. In the 2014 campaign cycle, the company contributed $3.3 million to congressional candidates, and last year, Verizon spent $13.3 million lobbying the federal government (including the FCC) on a variety of issues.

O’Reilly’s previous positions were in the public sector, where his bosses were favored recipients of campaign cash by companies opposing the current proposal. His most recent job, before being appointed to his FCC post in 2013, was in the office of Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). Before that, O’Reilly worked for former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), and former Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.).

Each of the elected officials O’Reilly worked for count broadband cable companies among their top 20 donors. Cornyn’s No. 1 donor is AT&T, and lobbyists from the company gave to the senator as well. His No. 19 was Comcast, a company whose lobbyists also donated money to either his campaign committee or his leadership PAC. Kyl also received money from AT&T and AT&T lobbyists.

Sununu had AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon — and their lobbyists — in his top donor tier when he was in public office. All of those companies are against regulating the Internet as a utility, and Sununu has joined the chorus from the outside. Since leaving the Senate, Sununu joined the board of directors of Time Warner Cable and sits as an honorary co-chairman of the nonprofit Broadband for America, which advocates on behalf of broadband Internet interests.

Of the 830 lobbyists who reported lobbying the FCC in 2014, 378 came out of the revolving door between Congress and the private influence sector in D.C., according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis. In addition, 13 lobbyists looking to influence the commission were once employees of the agency.

Comcast and AT&T lobby the FCC more than most. In 2014, they were both in the top four companies to lobby the agency (fourth and second, respectively). The organization lobbying the FCC most prolifically last year was the NCTA (one individual that used to work for the FCC also reported lobbying the agency for this association in 2014). At No. 3 was Sprint, a company that has said it will continue to invest in their wireless program regardless of what the FCC decides on Thursday.

Jessica Rosenworcel is the only Democrat on the commission who was previously a Capitol Hill staffer. Before joining the FCC she was a senior communications counsel for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. At the time, former Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D – W.V) was the chairman of the committee. AT&T and Verizon both ranked at the top of Rockefeller’s donors, though he came out in support of net neutrality measures.

]]>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/net-neutrality-fight-rife-with-interests-connected-to-commissioners/feed/0Gone, But Not Forgotten: Ex-Members Keep on Givinghttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/gone-but-not-forgotten-ex-members-keep-on-giving/
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/02/gone-but-not-forgotten-ex-members-keep-on-giving/#commentsWed, 25 Feb 2015 18:04:03 +0000http://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=7955Even when they don’t head straight to K Street, it’s safe to say that former members of Congress don’t forget their colleagues — nor are they consigned by them to history. For one thing, many ex-lawmakers find themselves involuntarily retired with money left in their campaign accounts and leadership PACs — money that can be used to help those who are still in the game. Others simply have deep pockets and an interest in seeing their party thrive.

The top 2014 cycle donors among former members of the 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses include Democrats as well as Republicans, and veterans of both the House and Senate.

Member

Chamber

Party

Personal Contributions

From Leadership PAC

From Campaign Committee

Total

Costello, Jerry F.

House

Democrat

$0

$20,400

$160,750

$181,150

Kagen, Steve

House

Democrat

$126,800

$0

$0

$126,800

Kyl, Jon L.

Senate

Republican

$2,500

$116,700

$0

$119,200

Kohl, Herb

Senate

Democrat

$16,500

$0

$100,000

$116,500

Voinovich, George V.

Senate

Republican

$2,000

$111,000

$0

$113,000

Dodd, Chris

Senate

Democrat

$31,950

$0

$80,350

$112,300

Saxton, Jim

House

Republican

$2,000

$0

$99,000

$101,000

Landry, Jeff

House

Republican

$16,870

$80,000

$2,500

$99,370

Lugar, Richard G.

Senate

Republican

$0

$94,000

$0

$94,000

Dorgan, Byron L.

Senate

Democrat

$33,112

$0

$59,500

$92,612

Note: “Personal Contributions” includes donations from spouses and dependent children.

The biggest contributors among ex-members fall into three categories.

Former safe seat-holders: Even the most secure members of Congress like to have millions in the bank to deter potential challengers, and the lucky ones make it to retirement without a serious race ever materializing. Jerry Costello, a Democrat who represented parts of southern Illinois for two decades, was 2014’s top ex-member donor. Costello, who won his last House election by 23 points despite 2010’s Republican wave, still had over $1.1 million in his campaign account as of the end of 2014 despite giving out more than $160,000 over the course of the cycle. Several retired senators also grace the list, since they typically had several years to raise money between their final campaign and their decision to retire.

Wealthy individuals: While no ex-members used their fortunes as actively in 2014 as then-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), they did combine to give over $1.2 million from their own pockets. The second-biggest overall giver on the list above is Steve Kagen, a two-term Democratic lawmaker from Wisconsin who once referred to himself as “Dr. Multimillionaire” and is still a generous donor to Midwestern members of his party. An even wealthier Badger State Dem, ex-Sen. Herb Kohl, places fourth, although most of his giving came from his campaign account. (Rockefeller has the means to place high in the current cycle; he retired at the end of 2014.)

Former Rep. Jerry Costello (shown in 2011) gave more to candidates in the 2014 cycle than any ex-member of the previous three Congresses. (AP Photo/Belleville News-Democrat, Derik Holtman, File)

All told, members of 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses donated $3.7 million during the 2014 cycle. Over two-thirds (66.8%) of that money went to candidates, while most of the rest (18.8%) was donated to party committees, with outside groups (5.1%) and leadership PACs (3.5%) receiving smaller portions. The money came from ex-members’ campaign committees (36.4%), leadership PACs (29.5%), and out-of-pocket contributions (34.1%) in roughly equal measure.

Those figures, however, represent only a fraction of the resources ex-members had at their disposal: Last year, the Center for Public Integrity reported that retired congresspeople have nearly $100 million left in their old campaign accounts. Democrats have had particularly good reason to bemoan all this dormant cash, since the two biggest sums, by far, belong to ex-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and ex-Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), who are sitting on $9.9 million and $4.4 million respectively. (This excludes ex-Sen. Max Baucus, who has $4.8 million left over, since he was a member of the 113th Congress for part of the cycle.)

If ex-members were an interest group, their giving would be roughly on par with the poultry and eggs industry or postal unions — not among Washington’s heaviest hitters but still respectable. Those numbers may rise in the current cycle, as several current and former lawmakers seem poised to make a bid for the White House and are likely to come calling on their colleagues for help.

D.C.’s law would allow residents to grow a limited number of marijuana plants and to possess up to two ounces. (Brett Levin/Flickr)

D.C. residents voted to legalize marijuana, but Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) wants to prescribe the District a different fate.

Local officials, having defied Harris’ rider in the year-end cromnibus prohibiting implementation of the city’s Initiative 71, say legalization will begin tomorrow, Feb. 26 — though congressional Republicans are equally bent on blocking it. The ballot measure passed with over 70 percent of the vote in November and would allow residents to possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use.

In the face of the legalization wave rolling through the country, Harris defended his actions by citing a lack of scientific consensus on marijuana’s health effects. While the current Schedule I drug classification makes marijuana more difficult to study than many illicit substances, research has shown that marijuana is in many ways less harmful than two of America’s favorite vices, alcohol and tobacco — though nobody credible claims that prolonged marijuana consumption has no health consequences.

Opponents of marijuana in Congress have mostly balked at this debate — and some observers believe there’s a connection to the money being poured into lawmakers’ coffers by the health sector. The American Medical Association, one of the heavy hitters in Washington, has called for re-evaluating marijuana’s drug classification while equivocating on a political agenda. Yet revelations that pharmaceutical companies maintain financial relationships with prominent anti-marijuana academics and organizations have fueled the view that the health sector wants marijuana regulation to happen on its terms.

Harris’ connections to the health industry were specifically highlighted after he attached his rider to December’s spending bill.

Are drug companies and health professionals worried about losing clients and market share to more herbal remedies, or is this a paranoid claim from the prospective stoners of the nation’s capital? Hard to say, but there are data to suggest a correlation between lawmakers’ positions on marijuana and the campaign funds they’ve received from health care industries.

An analysis of a vote from the 113th Congress found that House members who wanted to prohibit the Drug Enforcement Administration from blocking states’ medical marijuana legalization efforts received less money from the health sector than those voting against the amendment. Lawmakers who voted against the amendment received an average of $122,790 more from health professionals and $47,110 more from pharmaceutical companies over their careers than those in favor.

Whether D.C. residents are on the verge of a very green spring remains to be seen. Local government officials have proceeded through the steps to enact Initiative 71 despite Harris’ threat to sue. But the measure is also in the last hours of congressional review, a step required of all D.C. laws, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has announced an investigation of the city’s actions. While local officials want to move forward with developing and modifying regulations for the new marijuana marketplace, it’s increasingly likely that they’ll be spending time fighting Capitol Hill.

Both House party committees rely on large donations from wealthy individuals; the limit on what those well-heeled donors can give in a two-year cycle is now more than $300,000. But they also depend to no small degree on the generosity of members of each party’s caucus. Campaign committees can transfer an unlimited amount of money to a party committee, making it an ideal tool for collecting “dues” — the expected payments from lawmakers if they want plum committee assignments, chairmanships or a boost up the ladder into party leadership.

While the DCCC seemed to haul in more from both the wealthy and from caucus members in the first month of the 2016 cycle, it also has a deeper hole to dig out of, owing $10 million on a loan from Bank of America. That’s not to say the Republicans don’t have their own hole: The NRCC owes Wells Fargo $7.5 million.

In total, the House Dems raised $6.3 million in January, compared to the Republicans’ total of just $4.4 million. And of that total, the DCCC raised $3.4 million from individual donors (including $2.4 million from donors giving less than $200), while the NRCC raised only $1.6 million from individuals, including $924,000 from donors giving less than $200.

In other types of contributions — i.e, from corporate and labor PACs, as well as campaigns and leadership PACs of members — both sides received significant sums, with quite a few corporate or labor PACs giving maximum ($15,000) contributions for the year already. Some corporate PACs even maxed out to both sides — Johnson & Johnson, Wal-Mart and Amgen to name a few.

But the DCCC’s fundraising was led by strong contributions from Democratic House members. Seven different Democrats transferred $100,000 each to the party committee, and Rep. Ben Lujan (D-N.M.), the new chair of the DCCC, set the standard by giving $150,000 from his campaign.

On the other side of the aisle, just two House GOP members transferred $100,000 to the NRCC — Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) and freshman Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.). Lujan’s counterpart, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) transferred just $50,000 to the party committee in January.

McSally’s $100,000 gift stands out as she is not only freshly elected, but is officially the most recently elected member of Congress. Her victory was not certified until mid-December, when a recount of her battle with Democratic incumbent Rep. Ron Barber finally proved her the winner. Fittingly, McSally’s $100,000 is earmarked for the NRCC’s recount fund. McSally might also have particular interest in showing her gratitude — the NRCC spent $2.2 million attacking Barber and more than $350,000 supporting her candidacy.